Smalltalk › Squeak › Squeak - Dev

[squeak-dev] Monticello and Branches

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

4 messages Options

Steven W Riggins

[squeak-dev] Monticello and Branches

I have spoken to Avi a little bit about this, but I need some help.

Sophie has tons of packages, 20+, plus all of the tweak and squeak
packages.

I need a way where I can take the current state of a config map and
branch it. Really branch it, so any checkins on the branch are
CLEARLY going into the branch only.

Avi mentioned using new packages, but quite frankly that seems very
error prone and cumbersome, especially when you're not exactly sure
what to do.

In svn, I simply copy my current tree to a new 'directory' and I'm
done. I can switch between the branches easily.

We're getting bitten doing real, crunch time development where I can't
just easily branch off the current state of our project as "1.0b10"
and then build, without others checking in code while I am doing this,
or, working on the branch for 3 days to get it stable while others
work on the trunk.

This is very important, so if any of you have solutions for now to use
MC like I use svn, I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks!

Steve

Igor Stasenko

Re: [squeak-dev] Monticello and Branches

On 23/02/2008, Steven W Riggins <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I have spoken to Avi a little bit about this, but I need some help.
>
> Sophie has tons of packages, 20+, plus all of the tweak and squeak
> packages.
>
> I need a way where I can take the current state of a config map and
> branch it. Really branch it, so any checkins on the branch are
> CLEARLY going into the branch only.
>
> Avi mentioned using new packages, but quite frankly that seems very
> error prone and cumbersome, especially when you're not exactly sure
> what to do.
>
> In svn, I simply copy my current tree to a new 'directory' and I'm
> done. I can switch between the branches easily.
>
> We're getting bitten doing real, crunch time development where I can't
> just easily branch off the current state of our project as "1.0b10"
> and then build, without others checking in code while I am doing this,
> or, working on the branch for 3 days to get it stable while others
> work on the trunk.
>
> This is very important, so if any of you have solutions for now to use
> MC like I use svn, I'd really appreciate it.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Steve
>

What stops you from doing snapshots to a different directory/repository?
Here it is: a cheap way for branching :)

--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

Andreas.Raab

[squeak-dev] Re: Monticello and Branches

In reply to this post by Steven W Riggins

Steven W Riggins wrote:
> I need a way where I can take the current state of a config map and
> branch it. Really branch it, so any checkins on the branch are CLEARLY
> going into the branch only.

Use a different repository. We've been doing this for changes where we
needed a branch while unsafe new changes were worked out and it works
great. It actually plays to the strengths of MC since you can simply
merge the trunk (or vice versa) into the new repository and so stay
up-to-date with whatever goes into trunk. Repositories are cheap to set
up too, so the only thing you need to keep in mind that when you commit
the code you commit it to the right repository (this can be done by
removing the original if need be).

Hope this helps,
- Andreas

Steven W Riggins

Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Monticello and Branches

heh I was just thinking about this when I remembered I needed to check
for replies :) Thanks!

On Feb 22, 2008, at 10:15 PM, Andreas Raab wrote:

> Use a different repository. We've been doing this for changes where
> we needed a branch while unsafe new changes were worked out and it
> works great. It actually plays to the strengths of MC since you can
> simply merge the trunk (or vice versa) into the new repository and
> so stay up-to-date with whatever goes into trunk. Repositories are
> cheap to set up too, so the only thing you need to keep in mind that
> when you commit the code you commit it to the right repository (this
> can be done by removing the original if need be).